Subject:
|
Re: Mindstorms NXT programming languages
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Tue, 10 Jan 2006 11:47:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2258 times
|
| |
|
|
On 07/01/06, Steve <lego-robotics@crynwr.com> wrote:
> But there is already a Linux port to the ARM7 - if the NXT has
> enough memory and some kind of flash memory - or perhaps a way
> to finagle the USB port to be a master instead of a slave - then
> you could run a full blown operating system on the NXT.
That would be a fantastic win - keep a very minimal kernel, and drive
the software/hardware basics to be practically driven. Many languages
could they be built on that -with an SDK that only then places the
required language and tools on the NXT giving you as much memory as it
can.
On 08/01/06, Jordan Bradford
<jordon_bradfordREMOVE_THIS_SPAM_THINGY@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Besides trying to hack the USB port to make it a host (which seems more
> unlikely
> the more I read),
On 08/01/06, Stef Mientki <s.mientki@mailbox.kun.nl> wrote:
> Yes forget it,
> realize that windows 98 couldn't even perform that task (correctly) !!
I feel this may be so, but we can hope. I think it may be more down to
how likely the USB stack has been implemented in hardware - on a
single chip only configurable as device or something. If it is in
software, then I am sure we could come up with firmware advanced
enough to deal with some specific USB devices, though due to memory
considerations, we would have to upload specific drivers for specific
devices. A linux kernel as described above may be a good way to start
here.
Jordon Wrote:
> and besides trying to use Bluetooth to talk to my Gameboy Advance
(and vice-versa),
You mean the DS dont you? I am interested in using BlueTooth to talk
with phones as well. Java would be good here as many phones use Java,
and using the same code to generate libraries for both sides would be
neat.
> I'd also like to tackle something like the RCX.NET
> project. I like C# quite a bit, personally. Or with ASP.NET you could build a
> webpage that lets people control your robots remotely. Such projects already
> exist written in Java.
Similarity with Java would help here. If a small linux is created,
maybe an ultra-small mono could be used. The libraries would be
heavily whittled down to give only what is absolutely required.
Possibly by having C based drivers in the linux distro, building C#
and Java wrappers to talk with them would be nice and simple, and keep
the low level stuff in fast C.
> The Bluetooth communication will make this kind of thing
> much more reliable and probably easier.
Nice - a web interface could mean being able to build Lego based home
automation projects. But again - be aware of how much space an ASP
page may need. I wander how small we could make a web server - I
certainly have seen single chip Microcontroller based ones with simply
a power socket and an ethernet port, generally where the size has been
dictated more by the RJ45 than anything else
On 08/01/06, William Grant <lego-robotics@crynwr.com> wrote:
> What is wrong with C? There is a reason for it being (most probably) the
> most popular language on the planet! C is speedy, flexible, cross
> platform, compiles on virtually any processor. Java requires a hefty VM
> to run, it's slow, you have less control over everything, and is quite
> inferior to C.
Now, leave the language wars to slashdot. Neither C nor Java are that
friendly in the face of Perl, Python or Ruby. But in the embedded
apps, C has dominated because of its speed, however Java has also won
serious ground here. Both clearly have made their place and their
case. The common ground could be to create (as I said above) the
minimal linux kernel, then build the C libraries you will require, the
Java VM, or C# or anything else for that matter on top of it. Once
this common layer is established, as before, anyone can then go off
and try to create their language of choice to run in it. The variety
would be good to have, and having a common base under them will
improve compatibility.
> > I'm sure there will be plenty of languages to play with on the NXT.
> With any luck LEGO will make it easy for a number to work, otherwise a
> lot of the reverse-engineerers will get onto it quickly. If the primary
> processor is an ARM7 as everything says it is, it should be trivial to
> compile C, C++ and other languages supported by GCC, as that is one of
> the supported architectures. Hopefully, LEGO will have realised that
> people want more flexibility, so they will have eliminated most of the
> reverse engineering work required. We can only hope.
I think that Lego are going to openly encourage third party tools if
their interviews with magazines, press releases and the MUP are
anything to go by.
They may however, intentionally leave some details unannounced to
actively encourage reverse engineering if it will spur the community
effort and innovation the RCX had. By providing too many details,
those who enjoyed the challenge of reverse engineering may have little
incentive. I am not really sure if that works in reality, but is a
possible position some have. Personally - I would like, as you, as
much information and specs as we can get from them.
--
Danny Staple MBCS
OrionRobots
http://orionrobots.co.uk
(Full contact details available through website)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Mindstorms NXT programming languages
|
| (...) Yes. And the Swan firmware is about that much faster, with a lot of added things as well, and I can still essentially use all my NQC code and tricks. BrickOS is much faster, etc. I guess my point was that I hope the NXT is faster (...) (19 years ago, 9-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
18 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
